Food Hygiene Enforcement Interventions

1. Food Hygiene Enforcement Interventions

2. Aim • To provide delegates: • with an understanding of the food enforcement interventions provided for in the Food Law Code of Practice and; • practical guidance on their use.

3. Objectives • The course will seek to provide delegates with: • A brief review of Regulatory Reform and how this has influenced changes to the Food Law Code of practice. • A summary of the range of food enforcement interventions. • Suggestions on how these interventions can be used to drive up business compliance with food law. • Guidance on preparing service planning for the effective delivery of a food safety enforcement service. • Practical help with promoting consistency in the use of enforcement interventions.

4. Programme 09.30 Registration 10.00 Introduction The changing nature of food regulation 10.45 Food Hygiene Interventions 11.15 Coffee 11.30 Selecting Interventions 13.00 Lunch 13.45 Selecting Interventions Service planning 15.00 Coffee 15.15 Ensuring consistency 16.15 Questions

5. IntroductionThe changing nature of food regulation

6. Regulatory Reform • Hampton Report (2005) • Reducing administrative burdens: effective inspection and enforcement. • McCrory Review (2006) • Sanctions • Davidson Review (2006) • Compliance with EU law • Rogers Review (2007) • Priorities

7. Regulatory Reform Food Law Code of Practice

8. Hampton Report Reducing administrative burdens: effective inspection and enforcement.

9. Hampton Principles “Regulators should recognise that a key element of their activity will be to allow, or even encourage, economic progress and only to intervene when there is a clear case for protection;”

10. Hampton Principles “Regulators, and the regulatory system as a whole, should use comprehensive risk assessment to concentrate resources in the areas that need them most;”

11. Hampton Principles “Regulators should provide authoritative, accessible advice easily and cheaply”

12. Hampton Principles “No inspection should take place without a reason;”

13. Hampton Principles “Businesses should not have to give unnecessary information or give the same piece of information twice;”

14. Hampton Principles “The few businesses that persistently break regulations should be identified quickly and face proportionate and meaningful sanctions”

15. Hampton Principles “Regulators should be accountable for the efficiency and effectiveness of their activities, while remaining independent in the decisions they take.”

16. Regulatory Reform Act 2006Compliance Code

17. Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006 • Regulatory functions: • transparent, • accountable, • proportionate, • consistent, and • targeted only at cases in which action is needed.

18. Compliance Code • S21 of Act, in force: • April 08 • Legislative basis to • Hampton Principles • Approved by Parliament

19. Compliance CodePurpose “to promote efficient and effective approaches to regulatory inspection and enforcement which improve regulatory outcomes without imposing unnecessary burdens on business, the Third Sector and other regulated entities.”

20. Compliance CodeDefinitions • “Regulatory outcomes” • ‘end purpose’ of regulatory activity for example: • Improvement of compliance with food law • Reduction in food poisoning

21. Compliance CodeOverview • Code requires regulators to: • “adopt a positive and proactive approach towards ensuring compliance by: • helping and encouraging regulated entities to understand and meet regulatory requirements more easily; and • responding proportionately to regulatory breaches” • Regulatory functions • Based on risk assessment.

22. Compliance Code • Certain Regulators required to have regard to the Compliance Code when: • Writing policies, • Setting standards • Providing guidance • Code only applies to policy making. • Not to inspections, investigations, prosecution and other enforcement activities.

23. New Local Performance Framework • New ways of working: • public sector organisations working together more to deliver better, more responsive services to local people; • public, private and third sectors striving together for improved prosperity with plenty of ambition for the future; • central and local government agreeing the priorities for an area and working together to improve outcomes; • opportunities for local people to influence decisions about services and how they are delivered. • Focusing scarce resources on priority outcomes

24. New Local Performance Framework • National Indicators • NI 184 • Local Strategic Partnership (LSP) • Sustainable Community Strategy • Local Area Agreements (LAAs)

25. Objectives of Food Hygiene Service • National Indicator 184: • Food establishments in the area which are broadly compliant with food hygiene law

26. Comprehensive Area Assessment (CAA) • Introduced from April 2009. • Each year’s CAA will have four elements: • an area risk assessment identifying risks to outcomes and the effectiveness of their management; • a scored use of resources judgement for public bodies in the area; • a scored direction of travel judgement for each local authority in the area; and • publication of performance data for each area against the set of national indicators.

27. Implementing the changes. “CAA will see a shift from cyclical to risk-based inspection only when it’s deemed necessary or likely to aid improvement.”– Michael O’Higgins Chairman Audit Commission

28. Source: “Food matters at your council” LACORS/FSA

29. Food Law Code of Practice

30. Food Law Code of PracticeIntroduction • Revision necessary: • Bring food law enforcement in line with Regulatory Reform. • Some omissions in previous code • Reflect changes in EU law.

31. Food Law Code of PracticeIntroduction • Main changes: • Section 4 “Interventions” • Risk rating of approved establishments • Enforcement arrangements at primary level • Revised food registration form • live bivalve molluscs permanent transport authorisation • fishing vessel hygiene checklist

32. Food Law Code of PracticeInterventions “activities (by the local authority) which are designed to monitor, support and increase Food Law compliance within a food establishment.” • Divided into • “Official Controls” • Other interventions

34. Official controls • Regulation (EC) 882/2004 • Lays down general rules for performance of official controls • Introduced to improve consistency • Official controls should be: • Carried out regularly • On a risk basis • With appropriate frequency

35. Regulation (EC) 882/2004 • ‘Official Control’ • “any form of control that the competent authority performs for the verification of compliance with food law…”

36. Official controls • Official controls should take account of: • Identified risks • FBO’s past record • Reliability of own checks • Any information that might indicate non-compliance. • Should be unannounced • Flexibility to pre-arrange visits where necessary. • For example some audits.

37. Official Controls • Inspections • Audits • Sampling • Monitoring • Surveillance • Verification

38. Official ControlsInspections “the examination of any aspect of feed, food,animal health and animal welfare in order to verify that such aspect(s) comply with the legal requirements of feed and food law and animal health and welfare rules”

39. Official ControlsAudits “The systematic and independent examination to determine whether activities and related results comply with planned arrangements and whether these arrangements are implemented effectively and are suitable to achieve objectives.”

40. Official ControlsSampling “Taking …. food or any other substance (including from the environment) relevant to the production, processing and distribution of… food…. in order to verify through analysis compliance with … food law..” • Official control if • Submitted to official control laboratory.

41. Official ControlsMonitoring “Conducting a planned sequence of observations or measurements with a view to obtaining an overview of the state of compliance with … food law..”

42. Official ControlsSurveillance “The careful observation of one or more food businesses, or food business operators or their activities”

43. Official ControlsVerification “The checking, by examination and the consideration of objective evidence, whether specified requirements have been fulfilled”

44. Other interventions • Advice • Education • Coaching • Information & • intelligence gathering

45. Monitoring form • Inspections/audits • Verification/surveillance • Sampling • Advice/education • Information/intelligence gathering

46. Selecting Interventions

47. Selecting Interventions “Intensive regulation should be directed by Food Authorities at those food businesses that present the greatest risk to public health;” “those that are compliant with Food Law should be subject to interventions that reflect the level of compliance that has been achieved by the food business operator”.

48. Selecting interventionsStrategic approach • Intervention strategy should: • Recognise factors influencing non-compliance • Consider risks resulting from non-compliance • Focus on outcomes/outputs not inputs • Seek to secure compliance with food law • Top down approach • Centrally set • Bottom up approach • Local control

49. Selecting interventionsFactors influencing non-compliance • FSA funded research • Robin Fairman, Kings College • Different types of non-compliance • Inability to recognise own non-compliance • Lack of management controls • Wilful non-compliance

50. Selecting interventionsBarriers to compliance • Lack of: • Knowledge • Interest • Skill • Money • Time